I've always found it fascinating how we make decisions in our lives.
We observe and we use our observations to make decisions. But it gets to a much deeper level than that. What we observe is heavily biased on our life styles and our decisions. If we took sets of observations, we'd probably be able to identify several differences and deviations away from a random sample of observations.
Further, if everyone had the same observations, we tend to weight our observations all differently when it comes to decision making. (Maybe the way we do this is based on the current observations, I don't know).
When it comes to being able to effectively communicate with people, it's the ability to be able to reconcile the differences between observations and how we use our observations to make differences. The way we grow up, how much people are conditioned on similar things, most of these situations the differences are minimal and don't significantly impact communication.
However, whenever you randomly click on a Facebook post and you see people debating, arguing, for hours at end, most of the time it's the other person trying to transform the other person's observations and how they make decisions to either their own or a more centralized point of view. If you consider someone else's point of view to be like missing information, to effectively communicate we would need to be able to use our observations to estimate that missing information and be able to utilize this new estimated information to understand how the other person would perceive what is being said to them. This is similar to how machine learning and artificial intelligence works, and I find this too interesting for my own good.
